Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Justin Raimondo: IRAQ 'FLYTRAP'

Expand Messages
  • ummyakoub
    IRAQ IS THE FLYTRAP - AND U.S. TROOPS ARE THE BAIT Justin Raimondo, antiwar.com, 9/12/03 http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html The complete moral
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Justin Raimondo, antiwar.com, 9/12/03

      The complete moral bankruptcy of the War Party is coming out of the
      closet, as they say, with the emergence of the strategic thinking
      behind the war in Iraq. To those Americans who see that there was no
      connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, no weapons of mass
      destruction, no imminent danger, the war is a mystery. As American
      casualties become a daily routine, and Iraq slips into chaos, more
      and more Americans want to know: What were they thinking?

      Ah, but Andrew Sullivan knows…..

      In the confidential manner of a practiced sycophant, the British-born
      writer, former editor of The New Republic, and George Orwell wannabe,
      is so eager to show off his chumminess with the powerful that he lets
      slip the following:

      "Some time before the Iraq war, I found myself musing out loud to
      someone close to the inner circles of the Bush administration. We
      were talking about the post-war scenario, something that even then
      was a source of some worry even to gung-ho hawks like myself. …I
      voiced some worries about what might happen if an occupied Iraq
      became a target for international terrorism. Wouldn't U.S. soldiers
      become sitting ducks? What was to stop al Qaeda using Iraq as a
      battleground in the war against the West? …

      "And what he said surprised me. If the terrorists leave us alone in
      Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far
      more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than
      trying to defend civilians in New York or London. 'Think of it as a
      flytrap,' he ventured. Iraq would not simply be a test-case for
      Muslim democracy; it would be the first stage in a real and
      aggressive war against the terrorists and their sponsors in Riyadh
      and Damascus and Tehran. Operation Flytrap had been born."

      With U.S. soldiers as bait, "sitting ducks," as Sullivan puts it, the
      strategy of the U.S. is to say, in effect, "Bring 'em on!" So what if
      we lose a couple of hundred – or a couple of thousand – GIs in the
      process of springing this clever little trap. Baited with plenty of
      juicy young American troops, just waiting to be picked off, Iraq will
      attract terrorists like a dead carcass attracts flies. "Operation
      Flytrap" – it's enough to make any decent person gag. As opposed to
      Sullivan, who opines:

      "The extra beauty of this strategy is that it creates a target for
      Islamist terrorists that is not Israel."

      God, how I wish it were Sullivan and not some wide-eyed innocent from
      Idaho patrolling the mean streets of Baghdad. Let Andy take a bullet
      for Israel!

      Is it really possible for anyone but a moral monster to praise
      the "beauty" of a strategy that treats American soldiers like
      sacrificial lambs, moving targets in a shooting gallery, totally
      expendable? To say nothing of how it treats the Iraqis – who are
      discovering that the "liberation" of their country means turning it
      into a charnel house. A more profoundly evil scheme would be hard to

      Aside from its appalling immorality, "Operation Flytrap" won't
      protect us from terrorism. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
      says "We're killing, capturing terrorists in Iraq which is a whale of
      a lot better than Boise." But what would bring them to Boise to begin
      with is a desire to avenge what happened to Baghdad, and, at least so
      far, the U.S. government can't stop them from coming: if ABC News can
      smuggle depleted uranium into the U.S., imagine what horrors Al Qaeda
      could import to our shores. To think that our strategy is to rile up
      this hornets' nest is to realize the madness of our leaders.

      Given the reality of the "Flytrap" strategy, it ought to be clear, by
      now, why the biggest opponents of the Iraq war are senior military
      officers, both active and retired. To them, this is a truly monstrous
      idea, one that makes a ghoulish mockery of everything they have ever
      believed and fought for.

      The childlike innocence of evil, the complete absence of any moral
      sense, prevents Rumsfeld and Sullivan from seeing themselves as
      monstrous. In their own minds, they are legends: Sullivan thinks he's
      Orwell, and who Rummy imagines himself to be – Napoleon? Caesar? God
      the Father? – is more information than I need to have. Suffice to say
      that they see themselves as the Good Guys, idealists even, and they
      are genuinely shocked when ordinary people (as opposed to those who
      inhabit the Washington Beltway) express revulsion at their ideas.
      Sullivan writes:

      "I subsequently aired this theory on my blog, and received
      incredulous responses. Readers chimed in with objections.Wouldn't
      that mean essentially using U.S. soldiers as bait? Isn't this too
      cynical and devious a strategy? Isn't there a limitless supply of
      jihadists just longing to mix it up with the U.S. in a terrain they
      know better than we do? What on earth are you talking about?"

      What on earth, indeed.

      As a prime example of the Court Intellectual, whose job it is to
      flatter and fawn over the wit and wisdom of royal personages,
      Sullivan does a good job of rationalizing the disaster that unfolded
      after our "victory" in Iraq. It was all part of the plan, you see:
      Bush isn't trying to pacify the country. His goal is, rather,
      to "continue waging war against terrorism." The chaos is intentional.
      As death comes knocking on the doors of the families of American
      soldiers killed in the escalating conflict, Sullivan has the nerve to
      write: "Opportunity knocks."

      What's funny, in a morbidly unhealthy way, is that the clueless
      Sullivan thinks the President ought to come out with this "Flytrap"
      strategy in public:

      "At some point, I'd argue, the president therefore has to make this
      strategy more formal. He has to tell the American people that more
      violence in Iraq may not in some circumstances be a bad thing."

      Too bad the White House is unlikely to take Sullivan's advice.
      Dubbing the Iraq war "Operation Flytrap," and likening U.S. soldiers
      to cockroach bait would sure help the American people – and the
      troops in the field – see the true meaning of this rotten war.


      Michael Ledeen called this strategy "creative destruction," in his
      book, The Terror Masters, and his bold espousal of a profoundly evil
      idea is perhaps the chief characteristic of that infamous faction
      known as the neocons. They seem to revel in their own bloodlust. For
      example, neocon Max Boot, who bemoaned the low level of casualties in
      the Afghan war. Presumably the significantly higher casualty rate in
      Iraq has somewhat assuaged him.

      Speaking of Ledeen, the deranged intemperance of the man is a sight
      to behold. In response to a speech by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas),
      entitled "We've Been Neoconned," he went into hysterical fits in the
      pages of National Review Online, and accused the noted libertarian
      congressman of "distorting" his words. This is a typical neocon
      tactic: accuse your enemies of crimes you yourself have committed,
      even in the act of accusing them.

      Rep. Paul cited Ledeen's "creative destruction" thesis exactly as it
      appeared in The Terror Masters:

      "Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society
      and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to
      science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and
      the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and
      creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and
      shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo
      traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be
      undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very
      existence – our existence, not our politics – threatens their
      legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must
      destroy them to advance our historic mission."

      In his barking bombast directed at Rep. Paul, however, Ledeen weasels
      out of his own words, and changes the last sentence to:

      "Therefore 'they must attack us in order to survive,' and, sooner or
      later, we must confront them and, I hope and trust, defeat them in
      order to advance our mission of spreading freedom."

      Ledeen accuses Rep. Paul of misquoting him, yet he slithers away from
      his original meaning by revising his text to say "defeat" instead
      of "destroy." The coward doesn't even have the backbone to stand by
      what he actually wrote.

      What Ledeen is afraid of is what Sullivan doesn't have the sense to
      see: that normal people are repulsed, instead of attracted, to this
      callous cruelty. The sheer nastiness of the neocons is what has many
      people, both right and left, utterly appalled. They are horrified
      that a flock of bloodthirsty shrikes has commandeered the nest in
      Washington, and they listen with unease – and growing disgust – to
      the triumphant war cries coming from that direction. Ledeen is trying
      to tone it down, but the guilty secret of the neocons is out. They
      are moral cretins, with no more sense of right and wrong than any of
      the other crazed ideologues with a murderous "historic mission," as
      Ledeen puts it – and just as dangerous.

      "It should embarrass Congressman Paul to publicly expose himself as
      an ignoramus and a fool," rants Ledeen, but Ron Paul has done nothing
      of the sort. Ledeen has exposed himself as a liar, and a weenie – and
      it isn't a pretty sight. He claims not to advocate extending the Iraq
      war into Iran, but his U.S.-directed and subsidized "political"
      warfare against Tehran would lead to the introduction of U.S. troops
      as the inevitable deus ex machina of his "revolutionary" morality

      What riles Ledeen about Rep. Paul's speech is that it indicates how
      widespread the neocon meme has become. It's one thing to be denounced
      as a "neocon" in the pages of Antiwar.com, and quite another to be so
      singled out on the floor of Congress. The other day, my mailman, whom
      I occasionally engage in political discussion, referred to "the
      neocons" as if they were the incarnation of pure evil. When the
      resentment gets that widespread, it's time for Ledeen and his cohorts
      to watch out.

      – Justin Raimondo



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.